As part of this year's Chacmool Conference "Climates of Change" I was responsible for running the Plenary Session, in which a list of four invited speakers delivered a 45 minute talk on the topic of the conference, from the perspective of their own research. Here is a copy of my opening remarks for you to read and comment on. What do you think of the notion of "progress traps" as I outline here, and as I discussed in class on Wednesday. Is it a useful way of looking at "collapse" in the archaeological record?
This year’s Chacmool Conference Topic: Climates of Change, like many of our past conference themes, is an extremely timely one. In the year since we selected this topic, we have witnessed the Arab Spring, the Economic Crisis in the Euro-Zone, and the election of a majority Conservative Government in our own country.
Over the past year, our University has also produced some cutting edge research into the effects of climate change. One such article, published in Nature Geoscience this past January, proposed the following “what if” scenario.
“What if” we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more C02 into the atmosphere? How long would it take to reverse current climate change trends? …..and will things get worse before the get better? Dr. Shawn Marshall and his colleagues ran simulations of these zero emission scenarios and determined that current-warming trends will likely continue, rather than reverse, over the next 1000 years.
We might also ask another “what if” scenario. What if Calgary, Toronto, or New York had to go several months without electricity? One hundred and years ago, this would have been achievable without much suffering, primarily due to the fact that fallbacks were still available – things like hurricane lamps, wood stoves, hand operated well pumps, and so on. However, as we became more and more confident in electricity as a source of power, such fallbacks fell by the wayside. We can no longer revert to these earlier patterns of living because we no longer possess the means of doing so. This is called a “progress trap” and it was first used by a former allumi of the Department of Archaeology, Ronald Wright, in his book “A Short History of Progress”.
A “Progress Trap” is when human ingenuity, which begins as a boon to human kind, creates unforeseen problems of a larger scale– especially when carried to excess, or when conditions change. Unlike catastrophic disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes, this is a kind of slow, creeping disaster than human societies often find difficult to detect. Because of this, the political will to address issues that play themselves out over long periods of time (climate change), is often non-existent. I believe this is due to two things: 1) the pathologically short attention span of present day civilizations, and 2) fear that decisive action might lead to decreases in status and lifestyle.
I bring up Wright’s concept of “progress traps” because I think they neatly tie together the different “climates of change” that define this year’s conference topic – each continually acting back on the other.
As our plenary speakers today will demonstrate, archaeologists are uniquely situated to examine progress traps because they can detect the slower moving forms of negative change that often result from unchecked human progress. In this way, archaeology will no doubt make valuable contributions in solving issues that stem from various climates of change.
Being a product of our department, Wright speaks directly to this very point in his book, explaining:
Many of the great ruins that grace the deserts and jungles of the earth are monuments to progress traps, the headstones of civilizations, which fell victim to their own success. In the fates of such societies — once mighty, complex, and brilliant — lie the most instructive lessons...they are fallen airliners whose black boxes can tell us what went wrong.
Looking back into the history of the species of Homo sapiens, we can see that we have survived a number of bottlenecks. The two out of Africa theories demonstrate this with at one point sapiens dropping to a meager 4000 individuals. I think that this shows just how industrious we can be. Does this mean that we immediately went right back into the “lifestyle” we had before? No, we had to devise new and more ingenious ways of doing things.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that we will ever convince everyone of the current state of our planet, and that this progress trap is taking us down a dangerous road. If we had to stop it all now do I think that we would survive? Yes. Do I think that all 7 billion of us would survive? No, I think that we may actually suffer another bottleneck, and again having to restart our path. The ruins of the past show us that we can fall from greatness and begin again. I think that we have the knowledge and understanding of the ways of nature, and I think that we will conquer them again. There is something in the human spirit that compels us to go forward into progress traps without looking to our past to learn how not to repeat it.
Progress traps do seem to be a reasonable explanation for the fall of some human societies, such as the Maya city El Mirador. While it is not certain, one possible explanation or factor in its decline could be the city's massive construction of temples. The Maya living at El Mirador relied on subsistence from nutrient-rich swamp mulch, which would be used both in fields and to create gardens in the city itself. They also coated their temples in thick layers of plaster, made from limestone. This limestone had to be heated with young wood, meaning they had to cut down a great deal of the forest in order to build their temples, and according to this theory, took away the erosional barriers that protected the swamp mulch they relied on, forcing them to abandon the site and seek out a new subsistence strategy.
ReplyDeleteWhat we can learn from this 'black box', is that if we continue to take more from our environment than we put into it, we will cause it to collapse. The Maya did not die out because of this subsistence failure, and it's possible that if we continue the way we're going, we won't die out either. Either way, a collapse of the environment as we know it would cause a significant change that would require humanity to adapt our lifestyles in order to survive. Then again, we are not the Maya, and the way we have created our environment is on a much greater scale, making the stakes ever higher if that collapse does come.
This immediately reminds me of two things, each disturbing in their own way. The first is Easter Island and the desiccation of their natural forests in order to transport their massive statues from quarry to show. As the people deforested their entire island, they were trapped without a means of escape and eventually without food. Ultimately collapse became inevitable and beautiful… enormous creativity amid terrible destruction.
ReplyDeleteSecond it reminds me of Homo habilis, Homo bosei and the extinction of the latter. Habils was the jack-of-all-trades hominid ancestor and bosei was a sort of craft specialist. What I mean is that bosei’s cranial features suggest he specialized as a vegetarian (I saw this on Nova: Becoming Human)…anyways they were both around about 1.8 mya, but as the climate changed and the specialists no longer had a niche and they were out competed by, the handy man, Homo habilis. This is possibly an example of an evolutionary progress trap.
Though the habilis example may not be the strongest I wanted to use it to illustrate the connection between climate change and extinction. Perhaps we are on the verge of some sort of collapse, but what if it’s more than just the collapse of Western Civilization? What if it’s the collapse of the species? We’re in the 6th mass extinction as we speak and we, Homo sapiens, remain one of the few un-endangered primates. This goes to what Dr. Dawson is saying because I think it’s happening and we don’t even see it or do but are playing dumb, not just because, but because we’re still building this tower of Babylon….. What happens when there’s no where left to go?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWithout innovation we will fall into progress traps. We have to be able to continue to progress or we will continue to fall into the same traps over and over again which is seen through history with the collapse and abandonment of societies. However through progression our societies continue to grow and learn so maybe we will avoid falling into that progress trap but with the way we as a society rely on fossil fuels we could very well fall into a progress trap and inevitably have to fall back onto past uses such as wood.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about "progree traps" being apart of the climates of change doesn't necessarily have anything to do with changeing of climates, nor the extinction of the human race. It is saying more that humans progress and when they do they cause further problems that need to be fixed by further inventions which cause more problems. This changes culture because it results on a different technology being the focus of our society. This doesn't mean the demise of our species, it just means a shift in the way we live our day to day lives. Whether it becomes an extreme shift or a gradual shift depends on the reaction of the people involved and how quickly others follow.
ReplyDeleteProgress traps present an interesting juxtaposition. On the one hand, technology allows us as a species to progress further and further. It's what allowed us to become the dominant Homo species on the planet, it's what allowed us mastery over fire, and ultimately, has brought us into the 21st century. Yet, on the other hand, this heavy reliance on the very technology that brought us to this point may very well end up being our undoing, as our dependance has left us without a fail-safe, and if the technology goes, we may very well go with it. It is a sobering thought to think that the last of the Homo line could be decimated to the point of no return, not because of being hunted by other, better predators, or because of competition with other species, but because of our own innovation and ability to create and imagine on a higher level. Quite ironic actually.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of a 'Progress trap' is very interesting and one of the first questions that I asked myself while reading the blog was, if a 'progress trap' can operate on a psychological level. That is, perhaps a large part of the progress traps we will face in the future (or are now) is due to a lack of willingness to change ones mind. Culturally appropriate technology, and the marketing schemes promoting new technology tend to shed a negative light on older technologies, which eventually become labelled as "old fashion" and becoming socially undesirable.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, when older technologies are abandoned the knowledge required to make proper use of them also diminishes.
Progress traps are crucial for the understanding of changes in the economic, social, and political structures in a society. These are some aspects which are strongly related, in my opinion, to Darwinism/Social Darwinism. By looking at different cultures these traps explain the decline and/or rise of certain cultural traits and societies...A few years ago historians argued that the decline of the Roman empire may have been an outcome of a severe drought in the Middle East (Israel, Northern Turkey and down to the Red Sea. This hypothesis hasn't been rejected but still needs further evidence and analysis...also because other aspects of the empire's decline (e.g. spending, invasion etc...) have always been utilized to identify Rome's collapse. Hence, it is important to look at these traps in order to understand the changes within a society or its decline. Someone mentioned the OOA (Out of Africa) models...I think that they are a great example identifying this problem. The adaptive mechanisms and strategies evident in the archaeological assemblages at sites like Dmanisi and Abu Hureyra are to be considered as factors indicating the presence and influence such climatic changes may have brought in all aspects of a society.
ReplyDeleteI think progress traps are indicative of the kind of world human societies have created not just in present day but in prehistory and history as well. The fact that today one of our biggest issues in consumption of a finite amount of resources is not too far removed from the problems that existed in the past.
ReplyDeleteIn our study of the past we so often see cultures and societies reach a 'maximum' of prosperity which is then shortly after followed by a rapid decline in population and a reduction in site occupation and material culture. More often that not these are societies where population had expanded greatly and the resources that were available were exceed greatly by the demand for them.
In a similar vein to the posts on the Out of Africa models, in my archaeology of the Near East class we considered the presence of Neanderthals and early modern humans in the Levant. It's been believed for a while that humans replaced Neanderthals in this area because of a innate 'inferiority' of Neanderthals and their lack of modern human behaviour. In reality the most compelling evidence for the disappearance of Neanderthals from the fossil record is likely related to climatic changes that the early modern human populations at this time also likely fell victim to. I think examples like this help illustrate the point that climatic change is often overlooked as a major contributing factor to the changes in human societies through time and it's likely a lesson that should be learned before it's too late.
Progress traps are useful in certain situations of societal collapse. Some technological traits are bound to be initially interpreted as useful but lead to a collapse of society if they are not beneficial to the society.However, not every societal collapse is caused by this. Perhaps they simply attempted to inhabit an inhabitable environment or came in contact with a deadly disease that resulted in the group’s extinction.
ReplyDeleteOccurrences with early hunter-gatherers who over-hunted with their new technology were quite common particularly in the early development of lithics. They probably did notice that the herd's population was dwindling, yet fear of starvation prevented them from reducing the amount of animals they hunt. So, in order to feed their continuously expanding population they continued to kill just as many animals. Ultimately their sources of food become depleted and result in a societal collapse. The society’s failures to adapt to a foreseeable threat ultimately lead to their demise.
In the 21st century, our heavy reliance upon technology is slowly leading us down a path of self-destruction. I find it interesting that even though many people understand that our current technology is causing climate change, they still refuse to adapt and improve technology to be more environmentally friendly. I believe this is due to our arrogance that we can fix anything. We believe that no matter what we will find a way to avoid death at the last minute. This makes us unwilling to try to change now, in fear that we may fail or perhaps simply in fear of having to change this lifestyle we are so comfortable with. However, I don’t mean to say that once the resources are being depleted by the lifestyle that the society has no hope of recovery. By fully recognizing the threat and actually adapting to it (not just saying we will) we can prevent a potentially disastrous fate.
I’ll be honest, I probably wouldn’t be able to survive without electricity. However, almost any sphere of technology can be considered a progress trap. For example, not many hospitals could manage without medicine. What is also depressing is most of these technological spheres are dependent upon each other that if one of them fails most of society would go into chaos. When the blackberry phones went down a lot of people did not know how to cope. They often fidgeted with their pockets out of habit and felt out of loop with their friends. We are now at a point where communication is directly at our fingertips. I panicked when Canada Post went on strike and threatened to shut down. I think we all lived through a paradigm shift when the internet and cell phones were invented and used for the first time. We absorbed huge amounts of information all at once and new technologies are being introduced every year. I think in the long run, more people are becoming dependent on all forms of technology, but at the same time I believe that we are creative enough to escape any progress traps. The question is at what cost?
ReplyDelete"Progress Traps" and "what if" scenarios to me, define our civilization. We are under constant pressure to create better, more adequate technology to help fulfill our everyday needs. When we are creating new innovations, we seldom view them as possible progress traps during the time of invention. Personally, when inventing the combustible engine, people were probably more concerned with overcoming possible manufacturing defects of previous engines than fearing the possible environmental consequences. I believe every civilization has experienced "what if" scenarios. These scenarios are easy to come up with after the fact of something like a progress trap has been recognized. I believe to try and overcome this particular problem, "what if" scenarios need to try and be addressed by the inventors before such technologies hit the manufacturing stage.
ReplyDelete